Extending unittests [proposal] [Proof Of Concept]

Jens Mueller jens.k.mueller at gmx.de
Fri Sep 21 14:07:00 PDT 2012


Tobias Pankrath wrote:
> 
> >I'm actually kinda surprised the feedback on this is rather
> >negative. I
> >thought running unit tests individually and printing
> >line/file/name was
> >requested quite often?
> 
> I want to have this. My workflow is: Run all tests0(run all). If
> some fail, see if there might be a common reason (so don't stop).
> Than run the unit tests that will most likely tell you what's wrong
> in a debugger (run one test individually).

Though dtest is in an early state, you can
do:
$ ./dtest --abort=no

runs all unittests and report each failure, i.e. it continues in case of
a failure instead of aborting.

Then run:
$ ./dtest --abort=no --break=both
to turn all failures into breakpoints.
What is true that you cannot pick here an individual unittest. But you
can continue in the debugger though this may have its problems. But
running them individually may have problems too if the unittests are
not written to be executed independently.

Jens


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list